Whilst Parliament swallowed Theresa May’s tired arguments that "terrorist plots will go undetected" and "these are powers and capabilities that exist today", she failed to make a compelling argument that holding everyone's data is necessary and proportionate. Frankly, the Government was evasive and duplicitous, and they were in a hurry to cover their tracks.

Tom Watson MP described the process as "democratic banditry, resonant of a rogue state. The people who put this shady deal together should be ashamed."

And the European Court's decision was very clear: blanket data retention is unlawful and violates the right to privacy.

The courts will have the final say on whether DRIP breaches human rights. And no matter what David Cameron believes, the UK has international obligations. The European Convention on Human Rights, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and our own Human Rights Act -- all exist to defend our rights and are where we will be able to challenge DRIP.

As the controversial Data Retention and Investigation Powers Bill (DRIP) slips its way through the House of Commons and into the House of Lords, the outspoken boss of broadband ISP Andrews & Arnold (AAISP), Adrian Kennard, has promised to use "all practical legal means" in order to protect their customers from state sponsored Internet snooping.

Now, that may just be one ISP, but the example of iiNet in Australia, which has been fighting on behalf of its users there for years, shows what can be done. It would be nice if more UK ISPs did the same, but even if they don't, it's likely that others will join the fight against DRIP and its undemocratic passage through the UK Parliament, given the outrage this has caused -- in some quarters, at least.

had it not been for the USA obvious paranoia about terrorism and that they have managed to drag the UK along as well, this probably wouldn't have happened. isn't it also strange how the sudden 'heightened security alert' just happened to be put into play so this disgraceful action could be taken? as for May, there's something wrong in the head there! in fact, she would fit in well with a few here!

Re: Scared

They went after the partner of a journalist, Greenwald, using anti-terrorism laws, and saw nothing wrong in doing so.

Basically, if they think you present a threat to them, all bets are off, and they can, and will, do pretty much anything they want to, justifying it after the fact with 'Because terrorists!/'Because National Security!'.